[Cincinna]

Nothing at all in common with the Duke Lacrosse team case.
DSK us a known serial sexual predator, and the DA admits the encounter was probably non-consensual and the evidence corroborates that.
Her other lies and/or misstatements arent really relevant to whether she was attacked or not.

[10thAmendmentGuy]

Nothing at all in common with the Duke Lacrosse team case. DSK us a known serial sexual predator, and the DA admits the encounter was probably non-consensual and the evidence corroborates that.

I believe someone else in this thread has asked you to corroborate your statement that the DA said the encounter was probably non-consensual. From what I understand, the only thing that the physical evidence corroborates is that they had sexual relations. Please post a source for your claim if you have heard otherwise.

Even if the DA did say that however, that doesn't prove anything. Opening and closing statements in trials are not considered evidence, and statements by prosecutors outside the confines of a courtroom are certainly not evidence. The prosecutor obviously believed they initially had a case when they arrested DSK. Maybe he is trying to save face by claiming that in his heart, he knows it was probably non-consensual.

Her other lies and/or misstatements arent really relevant to whether she was attacked or not.

What do you think about this allegation? A law enforcement official said that the day after the alleged attack, when Ms. Diallo was being held in an Arizona immigration detention center, she hinted to the caller that she was going to try to exploit DSK's wealth.

Do you really think that this is irrelevant to whether she was attacked or not? We only have HER word to go on as to what allegedly happened in that room, because she's the only one that would have HAD to testify at trial (DSK could always refuse). I'd say that hinting to someone that she was going to try to exploit DSK's wealth, ONE DAY after the rape, is exculpatory evidence.

[10thAmendmentGuy]

Jeez, look at your original post. DSK is a commie/socialist and a friend of Bill Ayers, therefore he must be a rapist. Come on. Are you personal friends with the “victim”? What is making you repeatedly spout untrue things in this thread?

[businessprofessor]

DSK us a known serial sexual predator, and the DA admits the encounter was probably non-consensual and the evidence corroborates that. Her other lies and/or misstatements arent really relevant to whether she was attacked or not.

The DA did not say today that the encounter was probably non consensual. Even if he said it, much stronger belief is required to bring prosecution.
Her statements are highly relevant. She has a pattern of dishonesty for profit (immigration fraud, welfare fraud, tax fraud, and money laundering). Her account of the incident has changed substantially over time. She made a relevant statement about her motive on the recorded jail conversation. She has potentially lied about her involvement with prostitution. The NY Post published a story about her prostitution activities. She has threatened legal action but the Post has not retracted the story.
DSK is not a known sexual predator. While there are many stories about his escapades, nothing has ever been proven in court. It is not clear that any of these stories would be permitted in a criminal case.
The prosecutor would clearly bring charges if there was any case to be made. The prosecutor is politically correct, willing to zealously pursue rape cases. The DA's disinterest in this case demonstrates the weakness of the evidence and her very low credibility.
She deserve criminal prosecuation and deportation for her crimes. There is no doubt that she committed immigration fraud, tax fraud, and welfare fraud. I think that a good case can be made for money laundering. If the prosecution was biased aganst her, he would bring charges. The prosecution and the Obama administration will not move against her despite clear illegal activity.